Under the Scheme for conversion from leasehold to freehold, applications cannot be processed if the lease is cancelled and litigation regarding the property title is pending.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside letter No. 396 issued by the respondent dated on 20th March 2007 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for conversion of his premises from leasehold to freehold.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. A brief background of the case which has led to the filing of the instant petition is delineated hereafter:

I. The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing Plot No. 133, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi which was allotted/leased out to M/s Jeps Pharma (P) Ltd. (hereinafter "the lessee") vide Perpetual Lease Deed dated 28th January 1993 through its Director, Jatinder Singh Kohli and Rakesh Bajaj. The petitioner is also the General Power of Attorney holder (hereinafter "GPA") for the lessee. The lease for the premises in question was cancelled by the order of the respondent no. 1/Lt. Governor of Delhi, under which the respondent no. 2 functions.

II. By an ex-parte order dated 27th May 1998, with corrigendum dated 30th June 1998, of the respondent no. 2, the aforesaid Lease Deed was cancelled on the ground that then lessee had sold the premises in question without the prior permission of the respondent and that the premises was being used for purposes other than stipulated under the Lease Deed. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the passing of the ex-parte order against him and the lessee only when he received a notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter "PP Act"). Proceedings were, accordingly initiated under the PP Act before the Estate Officer.

III. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the respondent no. 1 on 28th January 1999, requesting for revocation of the ex-parte cancellation order and restoration of the Lease Deed so cancelled. Subsequent representations were made by the petitioner to the Lt. Governor vide representation dated 9th August 1999 and before the respondent on 11th September 2001 was made for restoration of lease deed.

IV. The matter before the Estate Officer came to a conclusion by passing of the impugned order dated 6th June 2003, whereby, proceedings for eviction of the petitioner were ordered to be initiated after observing on essentially the grounds, first, that reasonable opportunities were given to the petitioner to present their case before cancellation of the lease and completion of these proceedings, however, no response was submitted by them, secondly, that the petitioner was not running the industry for the purposes for which the lease was granted and plot was allotted to it and hence, it violated the terms of the lease, and thirdly, that none of the directors of the petitioner replied to the Notice served under the PP Act.

V. Aggrieved by the said order of the Estate Officer, an Appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court, which also came to be decided against the petitioner by the passing of the impugned order dated 30th October 2009, wherein it was observed that adequate notice was served to the petitioners herein and they were given a fair, just and reasonable opportunity to present their case. It was further observed that the premises in question were in fact a public premise and thus, no grounds were found to interfere with the impugned order of 6th June 2003.

VI. During the pendency of the Appeal, a Scheme of Conversion from Lease-hold System into Free-hold for Industrial Plots and Built-Up Sheds was introduced by the respondent (hereinafter "the Scheme"). The petitioner, seeking benefits under the Scheme, approached the Office of Commissioner of Industries where he was told that since the lease deed in question had been cancelled, he could not apply for conversion.

VII. Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 14th December 200